The Florida Division of Elections (DOE) released the campaign finance activity report from the first quarter of the year on Thursday, showing $14,875,000 in new contributions from a range of businesses ahead of the state Supreme Court ruling that officially cleared the cannabis measure for the ballot.

Trulieve, the main financial backer of the initiative, led the pack again with $9.225 million in donations during the first quarter. That follows the company previously contributing about $40 million as advocates worked to collect more than one million signatures to qualify for ballot placement.

The campaign Smart & Safe Florida announced last week that it had secured the new funding from donors “committed to helping ensure victory this fall.”

Here’s a breakdown of who donated to support the legalization measure in the first quarter of 2024:

• Trulieve: $9.225 million
• Verano Holdings: $2.25 million
• Curaleaf: $2 million
• Ayr Wellness: $500,000
• Green Thumb Industries: $500,000
• Cresco Labs: $400,000

Two other individuals also contributed $21.10 and $1.53 in the most recent quarter.

If Florida voters approve a marijuana legalization initiative at the ballot, that could actually “improve quality of life” for residents—in contrast with the governor’s recent comments to the contrary—the CEO of Trulieve said this week.

“The sky has not fallen” with Florida’s implementation of medical cannabis legalization under an earlier initiative, “and folks see that choice is a good thing,” Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers said during an interview on The Dales Report’s “Trade To Black” podcast on Monday.

Will Floridians ultimately pass the measure with at least 60 percent of the vote as is required for constitutional amendments in the state? Rivers says, “Hell yeah.”

The comments about quality-of-life implications of cannabis legalization follow Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R) prediction that voters will reject the marijuana initiative this November. He called the proposal “radical” and argued that it will “reduce the quality of life” in the state.

DeSantis, for his part, said last week that enactment of the reform would mean “this state will start to smell like marijuana in our cities and towns,” which seems to be a particular concern for the governor, who has previously complained about the smell of cannabis in other jurisdictions.

“It will reduce the quality of life,” he said, adding that Florida already has a medical cannabis program that his administration implemented following voter approval of the reform in 2016.

“Do we really need to do more with that?” he asked. “Do we want to have more marijuana in our communities? I don’t think it’ll work out well, but it is a very, very broad amendment.”

Rivers said that “DeSantis has been consistent for a long time around his comments around the smell and around, you know, not necessarily being excited about having marijuana everywhere. I think there’s some additional education that needs to happen there, which we’ve been working on.”

As drafted, the measure if approved would change the state Constitution to allow existing medical cannabis companies in the state like Trulieve to begin selling marijuana to all adults over 21. It contains a provision that would allow—but not require—lawmakers to take steps toward the approval of additional businesses. Home cultivation by consumers would not be allowed under the proposal as drafted.

Adults 21 and older would be able to purchase and possess up to three ounces of cannabis, only five grams of which could be marijuana concentrate products. The three-page measure also omits equity provisions favored by advocates such as expungements or other relief for people with prior cannabis convictions.

Separately, economic analysts from the Florida legislature and the the governor’s office estimate that the marijuana legalization initiative would generate between $195.6 million and $431.3 million in new sales tax revenue annually if voters enact it. And those figures could increase considerably if lawmakers opted to impose an additional excise tax on cannabis transactions that’s similar to the ones in place in other legalized states.

Here’s what the Smart & Safe Florida marijuana legalization initiative would accomplish:

• Adults 21 and older could purchase and possess up to three ounces of cannabis for personal use. The cap for marijuana concentrates would be five grams.
• Medical cannabis dispensaries could “acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell, and distribute marijuana products and marijuana accessories to adults for personal use.”
• The legislature would be authorized—but not required—to approve additional entities that are not currently licensed cannabis dispensaries.
• The initiative specifies that nothing in the proposal prevents the legislature from “enacting laws that are consistent with this amendment.”
• The amendment further clarifies that nothing about the proposal “changes federal law,” which seems to be an effort to avoid past legal challenges about misleading ballot language.
• There are no provisions for home cultivation, expungement of prior records or social equity.
• The measure would take effect six months following approval by voters.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,400 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Here’s the full text of the ballot title and summary:

The Florida Chamber of Commerce released a poll in January showing that a marijuana legalization initiative that may appear on the November ballot enjoys majority support from likely voters—but not quite enough to meet the state’s steep 60 percent threshold for passage.

Other previous polls have found that voters are well-positioned to pass the legalization initiative with more than enough support. For example, the University of North Florida put out a survey in December that showed 67 percent of voters back the proposal.

Meanwhile, there’s significant interest in how former President Donald Trump, a Florida resident, will vote on the cannabis initiative, and whether he will publicly support or oppose it.

Also, a Florida bill that sought to cap THC potency if voters approved the legalization initiative at the ballot died this session, much to the relief of cannabis advocates and stakeholders.

Legislation to restrict consumable hemp products and ban delta-8 THC was approved by lawmakers and awaits DeSantis’s action.

Separately, a House subcommittee recently advanced a medical marijuana bill that would waive patient registration and renewal fees for service-disabled military veterans.

Despite his opposition to the initiative, DeSantis, the former GOP presidential candidate who dropped out of the race in January, previously accurately predicted that the state’s highest court would ultimately allow the measure on November’s ballot.

Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) successfully petitioned justices to prevent an earlier 2022 legalization initiative from receiving voter consideration.

DeSantis also weighed in on another relevant cannabis policy issue earlier this year when, while still a presidential candidate, he said that he doesn’t believe the federal gun ban for state-legal marijuana consumers is constitutional. Florida’s former agriculture commission, Nikki Fried, brought a lawsuit against the Biden administration over the rule, though the governor did not get involved.

Prior to dropping out, DeSantis also said that if elected president, he would “respect the decisions that states make” on marijuana legalization despite his personal view that the reform has a “negative impact.”

While DeSantis doubts the cannabis initiative will receive the requisite 60 percent of the vote at the upcoming election, the Smart & Safe Florida campaign behind the measure is optimistic. And they announced last week that they’ve raised an additional $15 million from a variety of major cannabis companies as it gears up for an effort to raise awareness about the measure among voters.

New Hampshire House Passes Bill To Legalize Marijuana Through ‘Agency Store’ Model That Senators Oppose

Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.

The change to LB 388’s hemp tax rate was approved by the legislature as part of a broader amendment offered by the same lawmaker who first included the 100 percent provision, Sen. Lou Ann Linehan (R). It was adopted on a 28–6 vote.

The underlying tax bill as amended did not receive a vote this week, with a final reading and vote expected next Thursday.

Sen. Anna Wishart (D), who’s backed past efforts to end marijuana prohibition in the state, told Marijuana Moment in an email that the rate change was the result of negotiations between lawmakers and representatives of Nebraska’s CBD industry.

“The 100% tax was unworkable for CBD companies in our state. They were concerned it would drive them out of business,” Wishart said. “In talking with representatives from a group of CBD companies in the state, I worked with them and other senators to negotiate the tax down to 25%.”

Linehan’s office did not immediately respond on Thursday to Marijuana Moment’s request for comment about the change, although last month she had similarly told local media that the 100 percent hemp tax proposal was just a starting point for negotiations.

“Are we going to keep it 100 percent? No, we’re not,” the senator said at the time. “I’ve already had one of our members tell me that, you know, elderly people like lotions and creams, and it helps with pain. So like I said, we just have to look with it.”

Some lawmakers had said in n earlier debate on the proposal that the tax was out of step with rates set on CBD and hemp products in other states and that, if the goal of the bill was to raise revenue, Nebraska should consider legalizing and regulating marijuana.

“I looked around. I saw some statistics on other states—neighboring states—and it’s a lot lower. Definitely not 100 percent,” Sen. Terrell McKinney (D) said. “So we’re not going to be comparable to our neighboring states if we tax it at 100 percent.”

“Honestly speaking, what we really need to have a conversation about in our state, in the state of Nebraska, is our refusal to open ourselves up to other revenue streams,” he continued. “One revenue stream that we should open ourselves up to is the legalization of marijuana.”

Neither medical nor adult-use cannabis are legal in Nebraska, though activists are working to change that this year.

“We have a brain-drain issue,” said Sen. Jen Day (D), “and we refused to recognize that and address it from the other policy perspectives that caused the issues with brain drain—one of those being the fact that we have chosen year after year after year not to legalize even medical cannabis in the state.”

“Through the end of 2022, states have reported a combined total of more than $15 billion in tax revenue from legal adult-use cannabis sales,” she noted.

Adam Morfeld, a former Nebraska state senator who now co-chairs the advocacy group Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, posted to social media ahead of this week’s amendment that the situation showed that the state’s “policies dealing with hemp, CBD and marijuana are so backwards.”

Shocker. Our policies dealing with hemp, CBD and marijuana are so backwards. https://t.co/VDQUIpNIUC

— Adam Morfeld (@Adam_Morfeld) April 10, 2024

The underlying sales tax bill is part of a broader debate on how lawmakers wanted to balance sources of state revenue. Residents, many lawmakers have argued, have complained that property taxes are too high, and proponents of the bill have said raising sales taxes would prevent further state reliance on property taxes to fund schools. Opponents, however, criticized the bill’s overall increase in taxes, with some Democrats noting that sales taxes in particular would hit poorer Nebraskans hardest.

Some lawmakers have lamented that the complex measure’s many provisions seemed to come out of nowhere, although sponsor Linehan and others said on the floor last month that the details were taken from other bills that lawmakers had introduced and debated. The hemp and CBD tax, for instance, ostensibly came out of LB 1341, introduced in January by Sen. Justin Wayne (D) and apparently never acted on by lawmakers.

That bill as introduced indeed would have increased taxes on consumable hemp, but only to 7.5 percent.

The proposal comes as the state, like many others across the country, witnesses an explosion of hemp-derived products, including intoxicating cannabinoids such as delta-8 THC. Late last year, the state’s attorney general, Mike Hilgers (R), filed suit against retailers in the state over their sale of delta-8 products.

Meanwhile, activists are hoping to qualify two medical cannabis initiatives for November’s ballot.

A recent poll by the campaign found 70 percent support in the state for legalizing medical marijuana.

Organizers at Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana (NMM) have been petitioning for the change since July, about two months after turning in a pair of complementary ballot proposals to the secretary of state’s office.

The governor has already voiced opposition to the reform effort, saying in September that legalization “poses demonstrated harms to our children,” and that medical cannabis should only be accessible if its approved by FDA.

Late last year, NMM told Marijuana Moment that the governor’s argument was a “cop out,” and she says the campaign will let voters decide for themselves.

One of NMM’s earlier campaigns gathered enough signatures for ballot placement in 2020, but the measure was invalidated by the state Supreme Court following a single-subject challenge. Supporters then came up short on signatures for revised petitions in 2022 due in large part to the loss of funding after one of their key donors died in a plane crash.

Nebraska lawmakers, including campaign co-chair Sen. Anna Wishart (D), have also attempted to enact the reform legislatively, but cannabis bills have consistently stalled out in the conservative legislature.

Wishart’s medical cannabis bill received a hearing in the unicameral Judiciary Committee in February, but it did not advance. She attributed the inaction to changes in committee membership. An earlier version of the measure ultimately stalled out in the GOP-controlled legislature amid a filibuster that supporters could not overcome.

FDA Head Says There’s ‘No Reason For DEA To Delay’ Rescheduling Marijuana

Photo courtesy of Kimzy Nanney.

Amid heightened expectations about a possible federal marijuana scheduling action following the president’s 2022 directive, the president and vice president are again highlighting the administration’s moves to offer cannabis clemency.

This latest round of comments and social media posts comes in the middle of a month that the administration has used two years in a row to promote its broader criminal justice reform efforts. Biden previously mentioned his cannabis pardons and scheduling directive in the proclamation that designated April as “Second Chance Month.”

The president said during a National Action Network Convention speech on Friday that he’s “keeping my promise that no one should be in federal prison for merely possessing marijuana,” while fulfilling other criminal justice reform commitments.

[embedded content]

Biden has increasingly touted the clemency action in recent months, including historically during his State of the Union address last month.

Harris, for her part, shared a video clip on social media from her White House roundtable with marijuana pardon recipients, where she urged the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to finish its review into rescheduling cannabis “as quickly as possible” and, behind closed doors, said “we need to legalize marijuana.”

“Nobody should go to jail for smoking weed,” Harris said. “During Second Chance Month, I am uplifting the inspiring stories of pardon recipients… Their journeys are proof of the importance of pardons and second chances.”

Nobody should go to jail for smoking weed. During Second Chance Month, I am uplifting the inspiring stories of pardon recipients like Michelle, Chris, and Dexter. Their journeys are proof of the importance of pardons and second chances. pic.twitter.com/6fIuFgPT16

— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) April 12, 2024

Also on Friday, the Justice Department hosted an event commemorating Second Chance Month that included a handful of mentions of Biden’s marijuana pardon proclamations.

“In December, the president issued his second categorical pardon for certain marijuana offenses by expanding it to people who use marijuana or violated certain federal regulations,” Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco told the crowd, adding that “this is part of the larger effort for second chances and effort being led really by all of you—past and present colleagues here at the department devoted to this issue.”

Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer also noted at the event that Biden has “pardoned thousands of people convicted of possessing marijuana.”

“Each one of the president’s commutation grants has transformed the life of a deserving recipient,” she said.

A DEA official recently said it sometimes takes up to six months for DEA to complete its analysis of health officials’ scheduling recommendations—which is just about how long it has now been since the agency began its current cannabis assessment.

Meanwhile, last month, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra defended his agency’s rescheduling recommendation during a Senate committee hearing and also told cannabis lobbyist Don Murphy that he should pay DEA a visit and “knock on their door” for answers about the timing of their decision.

Certain DEA officials are reportedly resisting the Biden administration’s rescheduling push, disputing the HHS findings on marijuana’s safety profile and medical potential, according to unnamed sources who spoke with The Wall Street Journal.

The Biden administration was also recently pressed to reschedule marijuana by two coalitions representing military veterans and law enforcement—including a group that counts DEA’s Milgram among its members.

Based on a recent poll, President Joe Biden’s cannabis moves stand to benefit him in the election. The survey found the president’s favorability spiked after people were made aware of the possibility that marijuana could be rescheduled under the Biden-initiated review.

Justice Department Is Investigating Marijuana-Related Businesses Over COVID Relief Loans, Industry Sources Say

The comments from the governor’s office came in response to the House’s 239–136 approval of HB 1633, sponsored by Rep. Erica Layon (R). The measure would legalize and regulate marijuana through state-licensed “agency stores,” but Sununu has said he wants to see a state-run or state-franchised model that would give the government control over the look and feel of each store as well as product prices.

“Governor Sununu has been crystal clear about the framework needed for a legalization bill to earn his support, focusing on harm reduction and keeping it out of kids’ hands,” his office said in a statement to local news outlet WMUR after Thursday’s vote. “The legislation passed today doesn’t get us there but the Governor looks forward to working with the Senate to see if we can get it done.”

Layon, the bill’s sponsor, said she’s repeatedly reached out to the Sununu’s office in recent months to discuss provisions of the proposal. But so far she’s been snubbed by the governor, even as his office communicates with other lawmakers about the bill.

“The bill that passed the House reflects the Governor’s guidelines as I understood them, until his last minute embrace of a franchise model,” she told Marijuana Moment on Friday. “I made dozens of attempts to meet with the Governor and his staff to get into the policy details, but the best meeting I achieved was a walk-and-talk with him through the halls of the Capitol.”

The situation has pitted Republicans against Republicans, with Layon and supporters at odds with Sununu and his allies in the Senate. Failure to reach agreement could threaten the legalization bill entirely despite what appears to be majority support for the policy change.

Statement from the office of @GovChrisSununu indicating he wants to see @TheNHSenate go to work on the cannabis legalization bill the @NHHouseofReps approved today rather than simply declare it DOA #NHPolitics #WMUR pic.twitter.com/SdBkWOKbq0

— Adam Sexton (@AdamSextonWMUR) April 11, 2024

In a choice between the two competing models, a House subcommittee earlier this month rejected a sweeping amendment that would have replaced Layon’s plan with a franchise model. That amendment was offered by subcommittee vice chair Rep. Dan McGuire (R) despite him telling the panel he didn’t entirely agree with the proposed changes.

“We are told from the governor and from our contacts in the Senate that this is what they want: the franchise model,” he said at the time. “We are also told they will not vote for the version the House passed, and we are told that they are either unwilling or incapable of making significant changes in the Senate.”

Sununu’s latest comments suggest he believes the Senate can in fact make those changes.

But Layon now says adjustments backed by Senate Republicans like Sen. Daryl Abbas—who chaired a failed state commission on legalization late last year—may not find support in the House if an amended version of her bill makes it back to the chamber.

“Dozens of House members will not accept the language rejected by the House Finance committee,” she said.

“There is a real danger that the House may not accept what comes back from the Senate,” Layon added, “so I look forward to talking with my colleagues to ensure that anything we receive can pass without a Committee of Conference.”

Layon has spent months workshopping and building support for the plan despite warnings from some in the Senate—most notably Abbas—that her proposal will be dead on arrival unless it includes a state-run franchise system under which the government would control the look, feel and general operations of retail stores.

But House lawmakers have decided to stick with Layon’s approach.

Rep. Chuck Grassie (D) applauded Layon at an earlier subcommittee hearing for what what he called “a Herculean effort…to get the governor and the Senate on board.”

“If the Senate has problems with passing a bill, I don’t see why we have to do their hard work here for them,” Grassie said at the time. “I think they need to debate this. They need to make up their mind on a bill, and they need to send something back to us if we want to see cannabis legalization in the state of New Hampshire.”

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,400 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Layon has previously told Marijuana Moment that she never expected her proposal to be the only bill introduced this session to legalize marijuana.

“I initially intended that this bill sort of be a counterpoint to what the special committee was going to deliver and what Sen. Abbas was going to introduce,” she said. “The fact that he didn’t introduce it and this is the only shot at legalization this year, I just really wanted to work hard in a good faith effort to get to something that I was comfortable with and that match the requirements of the governor as best I understood them.”

The governor said at a recent event, meanwhile, that he thinks legalization is “inevitable” in New Hampshire, adding that policymakers have “seen the mistakes other states have made so as not to walk down that path.”

“People just want the accessibility for adults, keeping it away from kids,” Sununu said. “If they can meet those rough stipulations, I would sign it, because I think that’s one of the safest systems you’re going to get.”

He added that as a legalization skeptic, he’s better positioned to consider a thoughtful bill.

“There’s no better person to help design a system that could be fraught with problems and risk specifically to kids than the guy that’s most scared of it,” he said.

Last year Sununu said he supported a system of state-run retail stores, but lawmakers on a state study commission last year instead pivoted to the idea of a franchise system, which the governor has said he’s willing to entertain. Officials at the Liquor Commission have said it would be far less costly for private franchisees to build out a system of retail stores than to ask the Liquor Commission to take on that task itself.

Lawmakers worked extensively on marijuana reform issues last session and attempted to reach a compromise to enact legalization through a multi-tiered system that would include state-controlled shops, dual licensing for existing medical cannabis dispensaries and businesses privately licensed to individuals by state agencies. The legislature ultimately hit an impasse on the complex legislation.

Bicameral lawmakers also convened the state commission tasked with studying legalization and proposing a path forward last year, though the group ultimately failed to arrive at a consensus or propose final legislation.

The Senate defeated a more conventional House-passed legalization bill last year, HB 639, despite its bipartisan support.

Last May, the House defeated marijuana legalization language that was included in a Medicaid expansion bill. The Senate also moved to table another piece of legislation that month that would have allowed patients and designated caregivers to cultivate up to three mature plants, three immature plants and 12 seedlings for personal therapeutic use.

After the Senate rejected the reform bills in 2022, the House included legalization language as an amendment to separate criminal justice-related legislation—but that was also struck down in the opposite chamber.

These Marijuana Companies Are Funding Florida’s Legalization Ballot Campaign, New Records Show

Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.

Multiple sources in the cannabis legal space confirmed the trend with Marijuana Moment this week, though they declined to identify active clients involved in the litigation. This evidently involves both direct cannabis businesses that are involved in the production or sale of marijuana as well as ancillary companies that are not plant-touching.

One public case that DOJ disclosed last month involved a holding company of the Bob Marley namesake cannabis company Marley Natural.

A company that specializes in facilitating whistleblower complaints for alleged Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) violations, Sidesolve, successfully reported the cannabis business Docklight Brands to DOJ for receiving the funds in contravention of a federal Small Business Administration (SBA) policy prohibiting companies from taking the loans if they work with cannabis or indirectly service the industry.

“Because federal law prohibits the distribution and sale of marijuana, financial transactions involving a marijuana-related business would generally involve funds derived from illegal activity,” SBA said in 2020. “Therefore, businesses that derive revenue from marijuana-related activities or that support the end-use of marijuana may be ineligible for SBA financial assistance.”

Sources who requested anonymity say there are up to 100 active cases, with the Justice Department sending letters notifying businesses that are directly or indirectly associated with the state-legal marijuana industry that they are being reviewed for possible violations under the False Claims Act (FCA).

Under DOJ policy, individuals who report on PPP loan violations under FCA may be entitled to 15 percent of the proceeds from any settlement agreement. In the Sidesolve-Docklight case that was submitted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington, that meant Sidesolve will receive $148,416 of the settlement funds, DOJ said in a press release last month.

“Those seeking vital assistance from SBA’s pandemic response programs must comply with the requirements,” SBA OIG’s Western Region Special Agent in Charge Weston King said, adding that the “settlement sends a strong message of accountability.”

But the situation is more widespread, industry insiders and legal experts familiar with the trend say. And notably, it is affecting companies that are not specifically involved in the production or distribution of cannabis itself; any business that took the PPP loans that works with the state-legal marijuana market (e.g. accountants and consultants) could be impacted.

To be clear, it doesn’t seem the DOJ is proactively investigating these cases. A source in one federal prosecutor’s office told Marijuana Moment that they are aware that marijuana-related businesses seem to be uniquely targeted by third-party “relators” who could be using public databases to identify loan recipients who are adjacently involved in the cannabis sectors in order to receive the 15 percent payout.

The Docklight case is a rare example of a FCA settlement related to marijuana that’s been made public. Sources say this trend is relatively new, and legal documents are generally sealed until the cases are finalized, which could take months to years.

But as the Justice Department ramps up its efforts to reclaim fraudulent PPP loan distributions, the cannabis industry is apparently in the sights of companies hoping to cash in on possible settlement agreements they initiate.

“We looked at a number of different theories” about how to litigate under the SBA rules, Jason Marcus, a partner at Bracker & Marcus LLC that represented Sidesolve, told Marijuana Moment. “And one of the theories that came pretty early was marijuana companies. So Docklight was really kind of our test case.”

“We did our research,” he said. “We found where the SBA said, ‘This is not allowed. Whether you’re a direct or indirect marijuana related business, you’re not supposed to be receiving PPP funds.’”

Marcus said that his sense of the scope of potential liability among ancillary cannabis businesses is “pretty huge, frankly.” There are some more obvious examples of federal violations—such as cannabis dispensaries receiving the funds—but the SBA policy itself is broad enough to cover virtually anyone who received the loans and who derived some income from cannabis businesses.

He advised that any direct or indirect cannabis businesses that might be impacted self-report to DOJ to potentially avoid multiplied penalties. But the blood is in the water, and Marcus suspects his firm’s successful litigation and DOJ’s public disclosure of the case could be influencing other PPP data-miners to follow suit.

It’s “unusual” to have outside parties report businesses over alleged FCA violations, he said. “Not unheard of, but it’s unusual.”

The difference here is that there are public databases of PPP loans recipients available to potential litigants interested in assisting DOJ and possibly winning a 15 percent settlement cut. And cannabis-adjacent businesses are relatively low-hanging fruit.

The exact number of cannabis businesses that DOJ is investigating or prosecuting is unclear. But numerous sources confirmed at least one detail: There is a recent surge in letters from federal prosecutors to cannabis-related businesses about active investigations related to the PPP loans.

Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), told Marijuana Moment that he’s “heard from a handful of our ancillary business members that have been contacted by the DOJ about their PPP loan.”

“These businesses do not handle cannabis directly nor violate any state or federal laws and should absolutely have access to the Paycheck Protection Program, just as any other legal business,” he said.

Hilary Bricken, a partner at the firm Husch Blackwell, told Marijuana Moment that this “could set off a domino effect of reporting ancillary companies to the feds where the majority or all of the revenue is derived from the cannabis industry.

She added that this is “another technical nightmare” caused by the Schedule I status of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

The Justice Department and offices of individual U.S. attorneys did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

As Bricken noted, the issue at hand underscores yet another policy complication resulting from the federal-state marijuana disconnect. At the same time that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) under DOJ is exploring whether to reschedule cannabis based on a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommendation, federal prosecutors in certain cases are evidently willing to prosecute the industry over alleged FCA PPP loan violations that, theoretically, might not apply if the recommended Schedule III reclassification is ultimately accepted.

FDA Head Says There’s ‘No Reason For DEA To Delay’ Rescheduling Marijuana

The Senate Health and Welfare Committee plans to vote next week on an amendment that would make broad adjustments to the proposal, including narrowing the pilot program to a single site in the city of Burlington, where officials have expressed interest in hosting a facility. As passed by the House, the legislation would create and fund two over dose prevention centers (OPCs) in yet-undeclared parts of the state.

State grant funding for the would also be cut under the revised language to $1.1 million for the single-site program, down from $2 million in the earlier version of the bill.

Provisions in the committee’s striking amendment came at the request of various stakeholders, including Burlington’s mayor and fire department and the Vermont Medical Society, as well as the Senate panel’s chair, Sen. Ginny Lyons (D), whose district lies south of Burlington.

Another change would add that the OPC would need to provide drug-testing services—a request from Lyons—which presumably refers to positively identifying drugs and testing for adulterants.

A revision added at the request of the Burlington Fire Department, meanwhile, would require on-site professionals with training in CPR, overdose interventions, first aid and wound care, as well as the performance of medical assessments to determine the need for further emergency care.

The amendment retains the full $300,000 that was in the House-passed bill to study the impact of the pilot project. That money would come from the state’s opioid abatement special fund.

Panel revisions would also restructure the bill’s language to separate its OPC provisions into one section and provisions around the bill’s proposed syringe services expansion into another.

At a hearing on Wednesday, Lyons pointed out that the proposed amendment lacked language conceiving of more OPCs in the future.

“In a way we’re limiting it to one site in Burlington,” she said. “Going forward…there’s nothing in here that allows for expansion, should there be funds available.”

As the committee returned to the bill on Friday, however, Lyons also noted that the new language “doesn’t preclude” other OPCs from being authorized later on.

The revised bill also includes adjusted language on criminal immunity for OPC staff, property holders and others, to ensure they aren’t subject to arrest or prosecution as the result of good-faith overdose prevention efforts.

Lyons initially said at Friday’s hearing that she’d like to act the bill and others by the end of the day, although the panel ultimately decided to push action into next week.

[embedded content]

One issue raised during the latest discussion on the proposal was how OPCs would deal with possible smoking of opioids at facilities, which could create more problems for those nearby than injecting drugs does. Members seemed to agree, however, that the matter is one that the state Health Department could address when creating program guidelines.

Other areas of discussion among lawmakers during the roughly 40-minute debate on Friday included whether municipal approval would be necessary to OK an overdose prevention center, whether people would have their drugs tested and then sell them to others, the state–federal conflict on controlled substances and whether Vermont itself could be liable if it’s seen as condoning drug use.

Lyons urged the panel not to endlessly debate those issues, which she said previously came up during invited testimony and public comment in several hearings this week and last week. “We’ve looked at all of that,” she said. “We had the answers in our testimony.”

Before concluding the Friday’s hearing, Lyons said the panel would return to discuss remaining issues, such as questions about state liability.

“We have to solidify this thing,” she said. “We’re gonna finish the bill on Wednesday…but we may vote on Thursday.”

If it becomes law, Vermont would join Rhode Island and Minnesota in authorizing the facilities, where people can use illicit drugs with medical professionals present and be connected to various support services, including treatment.

Sponsored by Rep. Taylor Small (P/D) and 28 House colleagues, the bill is another attempt by lawmakers to allow overdose prevention centers following Gov. Phil Scott’s (R) veto of a 2022 measure that would have established a task force to create a plan to open the sites.

Even if the overdose prevention center legislation passes the Senate this session it still faces a possible veto from the governor.

“I just don’t think that a government entity should be in the business of enabling those who are addicted to these drugs that are illegal,” the governor said of the current measure at the time it passed the House earlier this year.

[embedded content]

Scott wrote in his 2022 veto message on the earlier legislation that “it seems counterintuitive to divert resources from proven harm reduction strategies to plan injection sites without clear data on the effectiveness of this approach.”

Ahead of the Senate committee vote, members took testimony and received written comments from a number of officials and organizations over the course of multiple hearings.

At one of the most recent meetings, the new mayor of Burlington, Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, who took office earlier this month, said that—like outgoing mayor, Miro Weinberger—”I also strongly support H. 72 and the pathway it provides our city of Burlington to pilot an overdose prevention center in our community.”

Weinberger, who himself addressed the panel at an earlier hearing, said addressing the opioid crisis has been a top priority in the city since 2015.

“I have long supported overdose prevention sites as a strategy,” he said. “I have become increasingly focused and increasingly believe that this is something that we urgently need to pursue.”

The proposal has support from advocacy groups such as the Drug Policy Alliance, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, National Harm Reduction Coalition, the American Diabetes Association, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, Johnson Health Center, Broken No More, Recovery Vermont, the Vermont Association for Mental Health Addiction and Recovery as well as various individual public commenters.

The National Harm Reduction Center, for example, called overdose prevention centers “a vital part of a comprehensive public health approach to reducing the harms of drug use.”

“They cannot prevent all risky drug use or related harms,” the group said in its testimony. “However, evidence demonstrates that they can be remarkably effective and cost-saving and improve the lives of people who use drugs and the safety and health of our communities.”

Some state officials, however, told the committee that overdose prevention centers (OPCs) aren’t the right fit for Vermont.

“My position is that while I acknowledge OPCs can have many potential benefits and be part of a multipronged approach to the opioid epidemic, they ultimately may not represent the best option for a state such as Vermont at this time,” Mark Levine, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Health, said in submitted testimony, arguing that the facilities work best “where people who need these centers can access them easily and quickly—typically these tend to be larger population areas, neighborhoods where injection drug use is more prevalent.”

New York City, he pointed out, has located its two overdose prevention sites in areas that fit that description.

[embedded content]

Levine also pointed out that people shouldn’t drive to and from overdose prevention sites, which they may have to do in many rural Vermont locations.

“VT doesn’t have the population density of people who use drugs and sufficient public transportation to facilitate people consistently using the sites,” he wrote. “That gives people who don’t live within walking distance the option of lingering near or in the site, having a designated driver, driving after use (completely unacceptable), setting up shuttles to transport people (apparently RI is planning to do this) or not using the OPC.”

“If people attend a site and then drive,” he added, “who has liability?”

Rep. Eric Maguire (R), who also opposed the bill, argued that while OPCs might be an acceptable option for Vermont in the future, the state currently lacks the infrastructure to make the project worthwhile. He also emphasized that the sites could violate federal law.

“Currently at this time, the state of Vermont does not have the infrastructure or continuum of care to support this harm reduction model,” he told the panel. “It’s not sanctioned by SAMHSA… It’s against the law under the Controlled Substances Act.”

“There may come a time when they are sanctioned by our national health organizations and sanctioned within the harm-reduction model laws,” he added, “and then we can look at crossing that bridge.”

[embedded content]

Weinberger, the former Burlington mayor, told panel members that not only do OPCs prevent overdose deaths, they also connect drug users with treatment and other services, often reaching individuals who are missed by other outreach.

“One often under-appreciated in the discussion is that studies are showing that these facilities reduce—not only do they not increase, they reduce—crime and disorder in the area immediately around the facilities,” he said. “I think that surprises many people.”

Weinberger acknowledged that the sites may not work in every part of Vermont, especially more rural areas, but said that wasn’t a reason to deny facilities in denser areas such as Burlington.

Scott Pavek, meanwhile—a substance use policy analyst for the city of Burlington and a member of the state’s Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee and Substance Misuse Prevention Council—urged lawmakers not to be complacent about the ongoing overdose crisis.

“Recently, this committee heard testimony that suggested the state’s overdose deaths have plateaued,” he said, warning against the “eagerness to point to a still unacceptable number of Vermonters lost to preventable overdose deaths as proof that our harm reduction and treatment strategies are sufficient.”

A saying he often heard during his own recovery, Pavek added, is that “half measures avail us nothing.”

“I encourage the legislature to consider that proverb when assessing our state’s system of harm reduction and treatment services,” he said. “You have heard about new, promising approaches to address the overdose crisis that seem to me to be half-measures relative to the utility of overdose prevention centers.”

Separately this month, Vermont’s Senate passed a measure that would establish a working group to study whether and how to allow therapeutic access to psychedelics in the state. If the bill is enacted, a report from the working group would be due to the legislature in November with recommendations on how to regulate the substances. As originally introduced, that bill would have also legalized use and possession of psilocybin, but lawmakers on the Senate Health and Welfare Committee nixed that section last week to focus instead on the working group.

Though Rhode Island and Minnesota have state laws on the books allowing safe drug consumption sites, New York City became the first U.S. jurisdiction to open locally sanctioned harm reduction centers in November 2021, and officials have reported positive results saving lives.

An early study published by the American Medical Association (AMA) found that the facilities had decreased the risk of overdose, steered people away from using drugs in public and provided other ancillary health services to people who use illicit substances. And separate research published by AMA late last year found that the centers have not led to increased crime despite a significant decrease in arrests.

Meanwhile the federal government has fought an effort to open an overdose prevention center in Philadelphia, with the Biden administration arguing that the facilities violate federal law. Earlier this month, the court in that case granted the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss a challenge from organizers.

The Supreme Court rejected a request to that hear that case in October 2021.

DOJ first blocked the Philadelphia nonprofit from opening the overdose prevention center under the Trump administration. Supporters hoped the department would cede the issue under President Joe Biden, who has promoted harm reduction policies as an alternative to criminalization, but the parties could not reach an agreement to allow the facility to open despite months of “good faith” negotiations.

Congressional researchers have highlighted the “uncertainty” of the federal government’s position on such facilities, pointing out last November that lawmakers could temporarily resolve the issue by advancing an amendment modeled after the one that has allowed medical marijuana laws to be implemented without Justice Department interference.

Meanwhile, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Director Nora Volkow has tacitly endorsed the idea of authorizing safe consumption sites, arguing that evidence has effectively demonstrated that the facilities can prevent overdose deaths.

Volkow declined to say specifically what she believes should happen with the ongoing lawsuit, but she said safe consumption sites that have been the subject of research “have shown that it has saved a significant [percentage of] patients from overdosing.”

Rahul Gupta, the White House drug czar, has said the Biden administration is reviewing broader drug policy harm reduction proposals, including the authorization of supervised consumption sites, and he went so far as to suggest possible decriminalization.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) put out a pair of requests for applications in December 2021 to investigate how safe consumption sites and other harm reduction policies could help address the drug crisis.

Gupta, the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), has said it’s critical to explore “any and every option” to reduce overdose deaths, which could include allowing safe consumption sites for illegal substances if the evidence supports their efficacy.

Justice Department Is Investigating Marijuana-Related Businesses Over COVID Relief Loans, Industry Sources Say

Image courtesy of Dima Solomin.

You’re reading this week’s edition of the New Cannabis Ventures weekly newsletter, which we have been publishing since October 2015. The newsletter includes unique insight to help our readers stay ahead of the curve as well as links to the week’s most important news. We post this and all of the newsletters on our website here.

Friends,

Canada legalized cannabis for adult-use in 2018, and a lot of investors thought they saw the future for the United States. It wasn’t so easy for the country to get the job done. Recall that Canada already had a federally legal medical cannabis program and that Justin Trudeau, the prime minister since 2015, had included adult-use legalization on his platform when he had run. The process was moving forward, but it almost failed on its “second reading” in the Senate in March 2018. The Cannabis Act passed in June 2018, and the industry has grown dramatically since the first legal adult-use sales in October 2018.

Legalization in the U.S. will be more challenging than it was in Canada. Unlike Canada, America has no federally legal medicinal program. Instead, it is legal under state law in the majority of states. Many of these programs are very different from one another. Of course, about half of the states have legal cannabis for adult-use, though these programs are not similar either. To legalize in the U.S. will create the challenge of coming up with a federal program, which will likely take a lot of time.

The federal illegality of cannabis in the U.S. has created a burden on the state-legal operators. After voters approved the first programs in the 2012 elections (Colorado and Washington), it took almost a year for the Obama Administration to react with the Cole Memorandum. Issued by the Deputy Attorney General, it conveyed that the companies that did not violate 8 specific rules would not be prosecuted by the federal government. That move in August 2013 encouraged me to open 420 Investor, and it excited investors.

Here we are, more than 10 years later, and our situation has improved a lot. Many Americans have access to state-regulated cannabis, which is a good thing! Still, though, the laws have not changed at the federal level, and this has left the industry at risk of the federal government moving away from its being okay with cannabis legalized on a state-by-state basis. When former Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole Memorandum in early 2018, cannabis investors and operators panicked. We have a presidential election this year, and this creates some uncertainty.

For cannabis to become legal in the U.S., Congress will need to legalize it. It has been very quiet on cannabis issues so far, though there are efforts on several fronts. One area of activity has been the SAFER Banking Act, which is in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. If this passes, it would be great for the consumers, as cash use would likely decrease. It could make things easier for cannabis operators, but it may not pass. Even if it were to become law, the largest publicly-traded companies would not benefit greatly, as they already have banking.

In addition to no federal medical cannabis program yet that could provide a basis for a full legalization, the political support is very mixed. Sure, several politicians in both Houses support legalization, but there aren’t any signs yet that this will happen. For cannabis to be legalized, 60 Senators would need to approve it as well as the majority of the House of Representatives. Unlike Canada’s election in 2015, the upcoming presidential election does not have any candidates making cannabis legalization a top issue.

For the cannabis industry to do better, full federal legalization is not necessary. As we pointed out more than a year ago, getting rid of the onerous 280E taxation for cannabis operators would be a very positive move. In late August, the Department of Health & Human Services recommended that the Drug Enforcement Agency move cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3, which would wipe out 280E. There is no timetable, and it’s not yet clear that the DEA will make this move.

The New Cannabis Ventures Global Cannabis Stock Index reflects the optimism of investors, and we think that they are being too aggressive. It is up 25.4% to 10.17 so far in 2024. Here is the past year, which includes the all-time low of 6.91 set in late October:

If 280E goes away, it will help the financially challenged industry. If it doesn’t, though, the American cannabis companies have cash flow and debt problems. The very largest MSO, Curaleaf, has $496 million in net debt and a tangible book value of -$748 million.

We discussed two weeks ago that the cannabis sector is not in a new bull market yet. The index has declined 0.5% since then. The chart now looks like a double-top, and we warn our readers again to not get overly excited by cannabis stocks. They are cheap, but things may not work out as well as investors hope or as quickly.

New Cannabis Ventures publishes curated articles as well as exclusive news. Here is some of the most important content from this week:

Financial Reports

To get real-time updates download our free mobile app for Android or Apple devices, like our Facebook page, or follow Alan on Twitter. Share and discover industry news with like-minded people on the largest cannabis investor and entrepreneur group on LinkedIn.

Use the suite of professionally managed NCV Cannabis Stock Indices to monitor the performance of publicly-traded cannabis companies within the day or over longer time-frames. In addition to the comprehensive Global Cannabis Stock Index, we offer the Canadian Cannabis LP Index, the American Cannabis Operator Index and the Ancillary Cannabis Index.

View the Public Cannabis Company Revenue & Income Tracker, which ranks the top revenue producing cannabis stocks.

Stay on top of some of the most important communications from public companies by viewing upcoming cannabis investor earnings conference calls.

Discover upcoming new listings with the curated Cannabis Stock IPOs and New Issues Tracker.

Sincerely,

Alan

Based in Houston, Alan leverages his experience as founder of online community 420 Investor, the first and still largest due diligence platform focused on the publicly-traded stocks in the cannabis industry. With his extensive network in the cannabis community, Alan continues to find new ways to connect the industry and facilitate its sustainable growth. At New Cannabis Ventures, he is responsible for content development and strategic alliances. Before shifting his focus to the cannabis industry in early 2013, Alan, who began his career on Wall Street in 1986, worked as an independent research analyst following over two decades in research and portfolio management. A prolific writer, with over 650 articles published since 2007 at Seeking Alpha, where he has 70,000 followers, Alan is a frequent speaker at industry conferences and a frequent source to the media, including the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, Fox Business, and Bloomberg TV. Contact Alan: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Email

Cannabis investments are difficult enough when the investor is a U.S.-based person or entity. But things can get immensely more complicated when foreign investment is on the table. Today I want to highlight some of the top considerations for foreign investors and U.S. cannabis companies alike.

1. Legality could cause serious headaches

To this day, cannabis remains federally illegal. State legality has zero effect on federal law. Even the possible rescheduling to schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) will not make cannabis federally legal. Things are clearly a mess.

In our cannabis team’s experience, a huge number of foreign investors do not appreciate the nuances between state and federal law and how it could effect them. For example, federal tax laws are unforgiving and don’t allow standard deductions for marijuana businesses. Additionally, federal illegality means that businesses will be siloed without interstate commerce, can’t get access to banking, can’t get access to basically anything for market rate, and so on.

All of these things mean that investments are simply unlikely to net big returns. Sadly to say, lots of investors end up writing off their investments. While federal legality alone isn’t the only reason that businesses, and by extension foreign investments, fail, it’s certainly a big one.

2. Cannabis investment may not be compatible with home country laws

This is actually probably more important than point 1. Cannabis is still illegal in most places in the world. There are still places where possession of cannabis can lead to the death penalty. While possession in a such a country is different from investing into the U.S., the governments in those countries may not see eye to eye, and such investments could lead to a host of different penalties. I’ve spoken with attorneys and business people from other countries who have said that foreign investment directly into a cannabis company is simply not possible.

What this can often lead to is investment into adjacent or ancillary companies in overly complicated deals. And when something is ancillary to the industry and/or a deal is overly complicated, netting a healthy return on investment is even more unlikely.

3. The cannabis industry and immigration law do not mix

Probably the first issue that comes up when looking at foreign investment is immigration and visa status. Immigration law is the province of the federal government. That means that it does not mix well with cannabis. If you’ve been in this space long enough, you’ll have heard of things like denial of naturalization petitions, denial of visas, arrests, and even lifetime bans on entry into the states. So for foreign investors who plan on relocating to the U.S. or even visiting to see the company they are investing in, there are huge risks.

4. Disclosure will likely be required

All states with legal cannabis markets require disclosure of certain people affiliated with a cannabis business. In many states, this includes investors, lenders, or people with other financial interests. Sometimes, the disclosures can be relatively benign, and in other cases much more aggressive.

For reasons expressed in points 2 and 3 above, a lot of foreign investors aren’t exactly thrilled to learn that they have to give personal data (and maybe undergo background checks) over to a state agency. This is yet another reason why foreign investments are often made into ancillary companies — to avoid disclosures. But even that isn’t always likely to fix the issue, and again, overly complicated investments into ancillary companies aren’t necessarily great.

5. Investment targets may get things wrong

Foreign investors often make a critical mistake in assuming that their targets know what they are doing. I’m not talking about operational issues — though a lot of companies clearly need help there — but about legal structures. It’s not unheard of for an investor to want to invest into a company that promises something it legally cannot do — like sell stock to a foreign investor in a state with a residency requirement. Yet things like this do happen from time to time, and once a foreign investor gives money over, it’s a lot harder to get it back.

Foreign investors who know what they are doing usually work with lawyers or other professionals experienced in their target jurisdiction, not only to diligence the target’s operations, finances, etc., but also to make sure that the fundamental aspects of the investment won’t trigger massive legal liabilities.

For some of our older posts on foreign investment in the U.S. cannabis industry, see below: